Martinez Hewlett and Ted Peters: Who Sets the Evolution Agenda?

Posted 26 February 2007 by PvM

Hewlett and Peters are the next scientists, in a long line of scientists, who have written about the scientific vacuity of Intelligent Design. The understanding that it is unnecessary to argue about whether or not ID is science has allowed scientists to focus on the lack of fertility or as others call it the 'scientific vacuity' of Intelligent Design. In their paper, Who Sets the Evolution Agenda? published in Theology and Science, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2006, Martinez Hewlett, a professor Emeritus at the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology of the University of Arizona and Ted Peters, a professor of Systematic Theology at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary, explain their objections to Intelligent Design:

In the meantime, we work with the premise that the Darwinian model is the best model for apprehending evolutionary biology. We believe the Darwinian model has proved itself the most fertile. It leads to new knowledge, which demonstrates its fertility. The difficulty with the Intelligent Design and Creationist models is that they lack fertility. They fail to produce progressive research programs. In a scientific sense, they cannot produce testable models. We believe that the dialogue with theology must take place with the best of science, not with a substitute that is a philosophical position and not science at all.

Rather than letting Intelligent Design set the agenda for discussing evolution, science and theology should focus on a more fruitful discussion which avoids the errors of Intelligent Design's philosophical position. But ignoring the powerful and well funded politics of ID's Discovery Institute may not be simple as their public relations efforts to 'teach the controversy' have caused much unnecessary pain politically and economically (for instance the Dover debacle cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, not including the fees of some of the witnesses). As Hewlett and Peters point out, the neo-Darwinian model represents the best science so far. In 1998 the CTNS and the Vatican Observatory published a range of excellent essays, Evolutionary and Molecular Biology: Scientific Perspectives on Divine Action which identified many points which require science and theology to work together to develop a consistent and coherent theology. At the same time, the interventionist approach put forth by ID was considered to be "hardly ... worthy of further investigation". The authors propose a more fruitful hypothesis which avoids the ID pitfalls.

The hypothesis we would like to run up the flagpole is this: God has a purpose for nature, even if the methods of scientific research cannot discern purpose within nature. We would like to begin with the assumption made by evolutionary biologists that their task is not to discern an inner telos or design that would divert them from pursuing naturalistic explanations.

While arguing that

Because of our doctrines of creation and redemption, by faith we affirm that God has a purpose for the history of the natural world. Still, we await the completion of this history before that guiding purpose can be disclosed.

In other words, purpose is a revelation and not based on 'ignorance'.

40 Comments

PvM · 26 February 2007

Hewlett and Peters also have co-authored two relevant books

"Evolution: From Creation to New Creation" and "Can You Believe in God and Evolution? A Guide for the Perplexed". Both books are published by Abingdon Press.

Mike Elzinga · 26 February 2007

"But ignoring the powerful and well funded politics of ID's Discovery Institute may not be simple as their public relations efforts to 'teach the controversy' have caused much unnecessary pain politically and economically (for instance the Dover debacle cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, not including the fees of some of the witnesses)."

It seems apparent since Dover that more people are picking up of the fact that ID is a well-funded political putsch. The IDiots would like nothing better than to tie up people's attention on topics that their movement determines. But focusing on their tactics and funding can help a lot in discrediting them. So can fruitful dialog on real topics of interest to science, religion, and ethical systems.

Katarina · 26 February 2007

Still, we await the completion of this history before that guiding purpose can be disclosed.

In other words, purpose is a revelation and not based on 'ignorance'. Huh? Yeah, OK. Whatever it takes to be politically correct.

Torbjörn Larsson · 26 February 2007

One thing is certain, theistic evolutionists doesn't set the agenda for science.

Hewlett and Peters are the next scientists, [ ... ] Martinez Hewlett, a professor Emeritus at the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology of the University of Arizona and Ted Peters, a professor of Systematic Theology at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary

Since Systematic Theology can be defined as the "the attempt to formulate a coherent philosophy which is applicable to the component parts of a given faith's system of belief" (Wikipedia) and Ted Peters disclosed degrees (the PhD is unidentified) and works is in theology, I think it is wrong to call Peters a scientist.

which identified many points which require science and theology to work together to develop a consistent and coherent theology.

Science has no obligation to affect theology. That would also be as problematic for theology as ID, since gods-in-the-gaps argument will be used by apologetics which later weaken religion when the gaps are constrained or removed. A prime example is 'purpose'. Individual scientists may of course do whatever they want. (Yawn.)

GuyeFaux · 26 February 2007

Still, we await the completion of this history before that guiding purpose can be disclosed.

Interesting. Are they seeing that God's purpose can only be divined after the fact? And that, for the moment, God has a purpose but we have no idea what it is? Then what good are priests and other religious authority figures, who I thought made a living predicting God's purpose?

Katarina · 26 February 2007

The claim that "the methods of scientific research cannot discern purpose within nature" only applies to some mystic, undisclosed, imagined, "higher" purpose. Science has no problem with discerning real purpose, as in, the reason things are the way they are, and the reason things are related in the way they are.

Haven't we been over this? Popper's ghost made the above point several times, as I remember, but even at the risk of eliciting yet more yawns, worth repeating.

Anton Mates · 26 February 2007

The authors propose a more fruitful hypothesis which avoids the ID pitfalls.
The hypothesis we would like to run up the flagpole is this: God has a purpose for nature, even if the methods of scientific research cannot discern purpose within nature. We would like to begin with the assumption made by evolutionary biologists that their task is not to discern an inner telos or design that would divert them from pursuing naturalistic explanations.
— PvM
While arguing that Because of our doctrines of creation and redemption, by faith we affirm that God has a purpose for the history of the natural world. Still, we await the completion of this history before that guiding purpose can be disclosed.

Er...how exactly is "Nature has a purpose, but it's scientifically undetectable and unknowable until the end of the universe" more fruitful than anything? Seems to me you've found one of the few hypotheses on the planet which are less fruitful than ID. ID says, "We can show that X was designed, but we can't figure out how or why or by whom." Hewlett and Peters say, "We can't figure out who or why or by whom X was designed, and we can't even show that it was. But it was, and we'll know more once the world ends." Yeah, that's useful. I don't mind much with Hewlett and Peters, since they're not (AFAIK) trying to force their idea into science class. But there's nothing "fruitful" about it.

Fross · 26 February 2007

Didn't some dude say..."science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" ??

I have to agree with this statement. We need religion to metabolize new concepts brought forth from scientific discovery, and just like you have good bacteria that helps you digest food, (religions that are not anti-science) you also have bacteria that can make you want to vomit. (ID creationists)

Sir_Toejam · 26 February 2007

We need religion to metabolize new concepts brought forth from scientific discovery

and I'm getting rather tired of people putting forth that quote without any substantive backing for it. why don't you back up that statement for us? show us EXACTLY how we MUST use religion to process new scientific concepts. really, I've been waiting for years now for someone, anyone, to provide evidence to support that statement. I expect I will be waiting forever.

Katarina · 26 February 2007

STJ, obviously it isn't about evidence. It's about meaning and purpose!

duuuuh.

It's about how we can still make ourselves the center of the universe, even though science has spoiled our notion that we are, in space.

Bill Gascoyne · 26 February 2007

Fross,

FYI, it was "some dude" named Albert Einstein.

Alann · 26 February 2007

Er...how exactly is "Nature has a purpose, but it's scientifically undetectable and unknowable until the end of the universe" more fruitful than anything? Seems to me you've found one of the few hypotheses on the planet which are less fruitful than ID.
— Anton Mates

It actually has significant philosophical meaning, primarily it identifies a very reasonable scenario in which neither science nor religion should be in conflict. From a science point of view we should not presume a lack of purpose, simply because we haven't found one. Compared to the scale of the universe as a whole our knowledge is ridiculously limited. We do know that we aren't the center of the universe, and that we did evolve from more primitive life, and we probably aren't anywhere near as special as we want to believe; however whether there is a reason, some bigger picture we are part of, is probably well beyond sciences current abilities to detect. From a religious point of view we should accept that while we believe there is a purpose, it may be beyond us to know that purpose. A complete and certain understanding of our purpose is well beyond our grasp. And who here thinks God could not be absolutely clear if that was his plan? To demand that the universe adhere to our personal preconceptions of our own importance, is a level of foolishness and arrogance bordering on insanity.

Sir_Toejam · 26 February 2007

It's about how we can still make ourselves the center of the universe, even though science has spoiled our notion that we are, in space.

so we MUST utilize religion in order to maintain delusions. that's a perfectly rational argument. I guess I need wonder no longer. ;)

Sir_Toejam · 26 February 2007

From a science point of view we should not presume a lack of purpose, simply because we haven't found one.

hence there is indeed no reason to presume purpose, or lack thereof, since it simply hasn't been found to even be relevant. exactly the point.

steve s · 26 February 2007

The difficulty with the Intelligent Design and Creationist models is that they lack fertility. They fail to produce progressive research programs.

Are you kidding me? Intelligent Design produces lots of research. They even have a quarterly journal. http://www.iscid.org/pcid.php "quarterly" is a publishing term which means "last published in 2005".

David B. Benson · 26 February 2007

steve s --- Maybe quarterly means quarter centuryly? :-)

Anton Mates · 26 February 2007

Er...how exactly is "Nature has a purpose, but it's scientifically undetectable and unknowable until the end of the universe" more fruitful than anything? Seems to me you've found one of the few hypotheses on the planet which are less fruitful than ID.
— Alann
It actually has significant philosophical meaning, primarily it identifies a very reasonable scenario in which neither science nor religion should be in conflict.

That's a function of it being fruitless, not fruitful. Naturally a claim which is completely immune to investigation will never conflict with science. On the other hand, fruitful claims are at least potentially in conflict with some new scientific data; otherwise they couldn't inspire new research to test and expand upon them.

From a science point of view we should not presume a lack of purpose, simply because we haven't found one.

Of course. And likewise we should not presume a purpose before we have found one--which, come to think of it, does conflict with the religious point of view described below. Let's also not forget that recognizing the lack of known purpose is not equivalent to presuming a lack of purpose. As far as we know, there is no purpose to the universe, just as there are no unicorns or magnetic monopoles. Any of those might be out there, nothing logically disproves them, but so far we haven't seen them.

From a religious point of view we should accept that while we believe there is a purpose, it may be beyond us to know that purpose.

Which is exactly the problem. Untestability. Hewlett and Peters say, "The difficulty with the Intelligent Design and Creationist models is that they lack fertility. They fail to produce progressive research programs. In a scientific sense, they cannot produce testable models." Exactly the same is true of their own hypothesis. Again, if they recognize it's not science, that's fine, but then they can't really say their angle is superior to the CreationID angle on scientific grounds. It's only more fruitful if we define "fruitful" as "Helping to push religion into empirical irrelevancy so science can operate unencumbered." Which is not, I think, what they mean.

Peter · 26 February 2007

It actually has significant philosophical meaning, primarily it identifies a very reasonable scenario in which neither science nor religion should be in conflict.

Yeah...that's vaccuous. Sorry to resurrect (haha) the religious war here again but the NOMA argument has no merit. If you're going to engage in the scientific enterprise then you should put your beliefs on the line and that includes your beliefs in...oh...I don't know...the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and the string of beliefs that have been attached to that belief (insert Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris here). That religion is somehow the universal source of ethical behavior is simply preposterous so the "...science without religion is blind" comment from Einstein can go the way of the dinosaur.

Fross · 26 February 2007

My humor didn't come across. I know it was Einstein that said it.

I also agree with it because it's the way it is right now and it's the way it has been historically. Science itself doesn't need religion to work, but it certainly needs religion to help the general public digest it on a philosophical level. (Something science can't do, yet humans tend to want some kind of significance and meaning attached to things like that) I was approaching that quote coming from a social standpoint. It just seems that in the past, ideas like civil rights, etc. didn't take off until they were fully supported by the local religions. In fact, the only reason we're having this discussion is because some religions feel threatened by what science has to offer, and they're obviously still a powerful enough "gatekeeper" to halt society's general acceptance of it.

We absolutely need guys like the ones mentioned above as advocates for science, because they will do more for a scientific illiterate society than some rabid atheists ever will.

Sir_Toejam · 26 February 2007

My humor didn't come across. I know it was Einstein that said it. I also agree with it because it's the way it is right now and it's the way it has been historically. Science itself doesn't need religion to work, but it certainly needs religion to help the general public digest it on a philosophical level.

neither you, nor anyone else, has ever demonstrated that to be the case since the enlightenment.

(Something science can't do, yet humans tend to want some kind of significance and meaning attached to things like that)

and yet it doesn't require the application of organized religion to accomplish this. It's been the "babying" of humans by folks like yourself that has maintained the illusion that religion is needed to somehow "disseminate" the products of scientific and rational thought. yet, NOBODY has ever proven that to be the case. I rather think it's time to tell folks like it is, encourage them and their peers to look beyond their baby rattles and soak in some reality for a change. I think they could handle it, really.

I was approaching that quote coming from a social standpoint. It just seems that in the past, ideas like civil rights, etc. didn't take off until they were fully supported by the local religions.

one, you need to provide evidence to support that, because civil rights was certainly supported by atheists as well. It's not the religion that allowed for "easier swallowing", rather than a large number of people who had falsely relied on local authority figures to give them their "truth", so relied on what their pastor told them, regardless. if it wasn't a pastor in a church, it could just as easily been at a town hall meeting where the mayor was explaining the same ideas.

In fact, the only reason we're having this discussion is because some religions feel threatened by what science has to offer, and they're obviously still a powerful enough "gatekeeper" to halt society's general acceptance of it.

some "religions" do feel threatened by facing reality directly. that is no reason to maintain appeasment of same. many religions, and even factions of religions (xianity for example), do NOT feel threatened at all. IOW, it's the philosophy of particular religious sects that is being threatened, and with good reason, IMO. If you're a YEC, damn straight you should feel that your "religion" is threatened by modern geology. It's simply no reason to maintain false thinking in order to coddle a delusion.

We absolutely need guys like the ones mentioned above as advocates for science, because they will do more for a scientific illiterate society than some rabid atheists ever will.

and yet, I've been looking at this for a long time now, and the people this kind of thinking appeals to (moderate xians) are simply not the problem. The audience you THINK this approach might help, simply laugh at it. don't believe me? then you haven't had many discussions with a real YEC or creationist. if they're adults, there is very rarely any argument, religious or otherwise, that will convince them, and the harder you try, the more you are viewed as "evil" for trying to turn them from the "true" path. IOW, the approach to religious "rationality" isn't applicable to the totally irrational, and appeals to those who would listen to begin with aren't really needed.

PvM · 26 February 2007

Some people appear to be confused about religion and science

Yeah...that's vaccuous. Sorry to resurrect (haha) the religious war here again but the NOMA argument has no merit. If you're going to engage in the scientific enterprise then you should put your beliefs on the line and that includes your beliefs in...oh...I don't know...the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ and the string of beliefs that have been attached to that belief (insert Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris here).

Why should you put all your beliefs on the line when doing science? Even those beliefs science cannot address? Perhaps some may have a hard time appreciating the Christian perspective because they are mostly unfamiliar with religious faith. From a Christian perspective there is nothing contradictory in accepting that there exists a God who has plans for us and the fact that such a God may never be detectable scientifically. Thus when Sir_Toejam wonders

why don't you back up that statement for us? show us EXACTLY how we MUST use religion to process new scientific concepts.

he forgets that the 'us' refers to a Christian audience. And thus it is no surprise that he creates a wonderful strawman

so we MUST utilize religion in order to maintain delusions.

and similarly

Which is exactly the problem. Untestability. Hewlett and Peters say, "The difficulty with the Intelligent Design and Creationist models is that they lack fertility. They fail to produce progressive research programs. In a scientific sense, they cannot produce testable models." Exactly the same is true of their own hypothesis.

Strawman... Neither one maintains that this is a scientific hypothesis

Again, if they recognize it's not science, that's fine, but then they can't really say their angle is superior to the CreationID angle on scientific grounds. It's only more fruitful if we define "fruitful" as "Helping to push religion into empirical irrelevancy so science can operate unencumbered." Which is not, I think, what they mean.

They are saying that their proposal is superior because it is not scientifically flawed because it stays silent on this topic. Perhaps it is time we listen more carefully to some Christians, who are sometimes not more reasonable or unreasonable than lets say atheists. It's when Christians or atheists insist that science shows/proves the (non)existence of a God that reason is abandoned in favor of issues of faith. What these Christians point out is how ID, by insisting that science can prove the existence of 'design', are doing a disservice to science and theology alike. Of course, that does not mean that some atheists will either chose not to understand their arguments or ridicule them, but we often ridicule that which we not fully comprehend.

PvM · 26 February 2007

It's simply no reason to maintain false thinking in order to coddle a delusion.

And how is the issue of false thinking and delusion determined? Care to take a shot at it? Sure there may be some clear cases of 'delusion' from a scientific perspective but is the presumption that the Bible outweighs the evidence of science such a delusion? It all depends on how one positions one's basic foundations that would allow one to reach a conclusion. If Sir Toejam really believes in his 'arguments' then why does he bother? Some try to be fair and open minded towards those with who we disagree and especially towards those who we do not fully understand. Others may find ridicule or derision a more effective response.

Sir_Toejam · 26 February 2007

Perhaps it is time we listen more carefully to some Christians, who are sometimes not more reasonable or unreasonable than lets say atheists. It's when Christians or atheists insist that science shows/proves the (non)existence of a God that reason is abandoned in favor of issues of faith.

but you're missing the point, Pim. It's not that some xians are reasonable and some are not, it's that this very argument and presentation IS NOT USEFUL in convincing the Non-reasonable ones to change their position. why? because it really has NOTHING to do with religion, and far more to do with psychology. religion is just the enabler for unreasonableness in these people, not the root cause of it. thus, presenting scientific arguments "trickled down" from a religious perspective will not address to root cause of the unreasonableness to begin with. if someone is reasonable to begin with, a simple presentation of the facts at issue will more than suffice normally.

Sir_Toejam · 26 February 2007

And how is the issue of false thinking and delusion determined? Care to take a shot at it?

sure thing. the earth is 6k years old is a delusion.

PvM · 26 February 2007

don't believe me? then you haven't had many discussions with a real YEC or creationist.
— Sir Toejam

Define: Real YEC or creationist since there are quite a few examples where such people were open to scientific reasoning and in many cases have changed their opinions as to the relationship of the Bible and science. Glenn Morton is an example of a YEC-er from the middle of the YEC movement, while I would count as an example from the YEC fringes. Now I am sure that there will be those who are unable to listen but do not make the logical fallacy that all creationists/yec-ers are 'created' equally.

Sir_Toejam · 26 February 2007

... the idea that there are 13 "kinds" of animals on the earth is a delusion.

... the idea that god will answer your prayers and grant victory over your enemies (as stated on numerous occassions in the OT and Quran, for example), is a delusion.

how many examples do you need, exactly?

Sir_Toejam · 26 February 2007

i'll add stephen elliot to that list.

but was it the approach from religion that convinced them? or did they finally see through the delusions that had haunted them as they took a clear look at the evidence both in support of evolutionary theory and the evidence of the dishonesty and misrepresentation on the side of the authority figures they previously looked to for information?

shall we go back to the measured "success" of Allan McNeill's course, Pim?

hmm, let's see... even with that level of "evenhanded presentation", it seems it hasn't slowed down the idiocy of the IDEA club at Cornell in the slightest.

getting my point yet?

Anton Mates · 26 February 2007

It just seems that in the past, ideas like civil rights, etc. didn't take off until they were fully supported by the local religions.
— Fross

Civil rights were never fully supported by the local religions--see the Southern Baptist Convention, for instance. See lots more religious groups right now re: gay rights. Society progresses, some religions happily march in the vanguard of that, others drag their feet and are still playing catch-up fifty years later. Fortunately, most people are better than the belief systems they espouse. You can convince them without convincing their church--witness the many Catholics who practice safe sex, for instance.

We absolutely need guys like the ones mentioned above as advocates for science, because they will do more for a scientific illiterate society than some rabid atheists ever will.

Oh, definitely. They're clearly going to be far more effective science popularizers than god-haters like Dawkins, Sagan and Gould. Nobody reads those guys. But sure, it'd be nice to have Hewlett and Peters on board. Now, do you think they'd jump off the science bus just because some people on a blog pointed out that they're wrong about some stuff? I don't.

Sir_Toejam · 26 February 2007

witness the many Catholics who practice safe sex, for instance.

that too, supports the idea that many people are more than capable of making rational decisions without the aid of any supporting religious infrastructure.

Anton Mates · 26 February 2007

Which is exactly the problem. Untestability. Hewlett and Peters say, "The difficulty with the Intelligent Design and Creationist models is that they lack fertility. They fail to produce progressive research programs. In a scientific sense, they cannot produce testable models." Exactly the same is true of their own hypothesis.
— PvM
Strawman... Neither one maintains that this is a scientific hypothesis

Then you've misrepresented them. Their objection to ID and Creationism is that they "lack fertility. They fail to produce progressive research programs. In a scientific sense, they cannot produce testable models." Then you say that their hypothesis is "a more fruitful hypothesis which avoids the ID pitfalls." Clearly, that's incorrect. The benefit of their hypothesis is that it's consciously fruitless--they know that it can't produce testable models or progressive research programs, so they don't bother to try.

Perhaps it is time we listen more carefully to some Christians

And represent their positions more accurately when we start threads about them, perhaps.

PvM · 27 February 2007

Clearly, that's incorrect. The benefit of their hypothesis is that it's consciously fruitless---they know that it can't produce testable models or progressive research programs, so they don't bother to try.
— Anton Mates

Since that is not their goal, it seems you are attacking a strawman here.

Perhaps it is time we listen more carefully to some Christians

And represent their positions more accurately when we start threads about them, perhaps. Apology accepted.

Anton Mates · 27 February 2007

but was it the approach from religion that convinced them? or did they finally see through the delusions that had haunted them as they took a clear look at the evidence both in support of evolutionary theory and the evidence of the dishonesty and misrepresentation on the side of the authority figures they previously looked to for information?
— Sir_Toejam

In Glenn Morton's case, definitely the latter; in fact, when he gave up on creationism he lost most of his religious faith as well. He later regained it, but clearly he wasn't persuaded of evolution via the religion angle. Stephen Elliott simply credits people who showed him the ID position had no merit; I don't think he mentioned religion one way or the other. Katarina credits Dawkins and Popper's Ghost, doesn't she? We really need to run a poll here or at talk.origins: What were the public religious beliefs of the people who persuaded you of evolutionary theory?

PvM · 27 February 2007

... the idea that there are 13 "kinds" of animals on the earth is a delusion.... the idea that god will answer your prayers and grant victory over your enemies (as stated on numerous occassions in the OT and Quran, for example), is a delusion. how many examples do you need, exactly?

Why are these delusions? Please explain the exact steps through which you have established these 'delusions' and provide the context for what you claim are delusions. Do you think science has shown that these are delusions? In what sense?

Anton Mates · 27 February 2007

Since that is not their goal, it seems you are attacking a strawman here.
— PvM

Indeed, one of your creation. It seems you've retracted it, though; well done.

And represent their positions more accurately when we start threads about them, perhaps.

Apology accepted. Oh, Pim. Don't ever change.

PvM · 27 February 2007

shall we go back to the measured "success" of Allan McNeill's course, Pim? hmm, let's see... even with that level of "evenhanded presentation", it seems it hasn't slowed down the idiocy of the IDEA club at Cornell in the slightest. getting my point yet?

Not really. Of course if 'slowing down the idiocy of the IDEA club at Cornell' is the measure of success then perhaps you may have a small point. So what about the examples I provided you with? Too hard to address real ones instead of your strawmen? Sometimes I see little difference between those who oppose religion at all cost and those who will defend it at all cost. At both extremes they meet.

PvM · 27 February 2007

Indeed, one of your creation. It seems you've retracted it, though; well done.

Am I now responsible for your own strawmen? What power you allow others to have over you....

Sir_Toejam · 27 February 2007

Do you think science has shown that these are delusions? In what sense?

so there really ARE only 13 "kinds" of animals, and the earth really is only 6k years old, eh Pim? that's what the scientific evidence supports, you say? why don't you get to your real point, and stop playing up what can only be viewed as a weak argument of logic at best.

Sir_Toejam · 27 February 2007

Am I now responsible for your own strawmen? What power you allow others to have over you....

that made absolutely NO sense, Pim. suggest you take a nap and come back to this in the morning.

PvM · 27 February 2007

so there really ARE only 13 "kinds" of animals, and the earth really is only 6k years old, eh Pim? that's what the scientific evidence supports, you say? why don't you get to your real point, and stop playing up what can only be viewed as a weak argument of logic at best.

Moving the goalposts? So what is your real point Sir Toejam? I understand why you are trying to distract from the issue I raised but come on, how hard is it to support your claims (as opposed to creating strawmen that is?). Remember 'delusions'?

PvM · 27 February 2007

that made absolutely NO sense, Pim. suggest you take a nap and come back to this in the morning.

In other words, I hit a nerve. I always wondered how I could be responsible for the strawmen created by others. Good, now let's get back to some of the more interesting issues which have gotten lost in the rush of some to attack strawmen.